Re: 2.6.25-rc4 rcupreempt.h WARNINGs while suspend/resume

["Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:35:26PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>  > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>  > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>  > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 11:07:48AM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>  > >  > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>  > >  > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>  > >  > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:08:55PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > >  > My syslog became a 2G size big file yestoday due to the warnings.
>  > >  > >  > How about change the WARN_ON to WARN_ON_ONCE?
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  Hello, Dave,
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  I might be convinced to make this change for 2.6.26, but the condition
>  > >  > >  that the WARN_ON() is complaining about is quite serious, so I don't
>  > >  > >  want to take a chance on it getting lost in the noise in the 2.6.25
>  > >  > >  series.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  Seem reasonable?
>  > >  >
>  > >  > IMHO, WARN_ON_ONCE is enough for my eyes :)
>  > >
>  > >  I could believe that, but my experience has been that many others
>  > >  need the condition to be obvious...
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  > >  Better yet, is there some sort of time-limited WARN_ON that kicks out
>  > >  > >  a message at most once per second or some such?  Enough to definitely
>  > >  > >  be noticed, but not enough to bring the machine to its knees?
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Seems there's no such functions/macros, but is is really needed?
>  > >
>  > >  If everyone reports errors when they see isolated WARN_ON()s in their
>  > >  logfiles, then no.  But...
>  >
>  > Ok, I agree with you.
>  >
>  > Maybe something like WARN_ON_HZ(condition) or
>  > WARN_ON_PERIOD(condition, period_value)?
>
>  Makes sense to me!  The other benefit of this sort of thing is that
>  it lets you know whether the problem was a one-off or whether it
>  continued happening -- but without too much log bloat.
>
>  I was thinking in terms of once every ten seconds, but am not all
>  that hung up on the exact value of the period.
>
>  Thoughts?

Then, WARN_ON_SECS(condition, seconds) ?

>
>                                                 Thanx, Paul
>